So local deployment is very interesting and creates very unique scenarios,however there is one thing that bugs me about it.If only local deployment was compatible with multiple bonuses.It can work this way:

Say we have a bonus X which is a part of a superbonus Y.

The player is able/has to deploy the armies bonus X provides within that bonus and the armies superbonus Y provides within that superbonus,including bonus X.

This may seem like dumb and purposeless change,but when combined with the creation of special maps,it can be used to do amazing things,such as effectively separating navy and ground without dumb/complicated water provinces.People who seek complexity are happy,while the game's simplicity isn't ruined for those who would like it preserved.

I know I will be told to uservoice it and I probably will at some point,I just wanted to hear your opinions.Is it something you would like to see implemented?

What can you possibly lose by giving scenario an map creators more choice?I am simply suggesting the expansion of an already existing feature,not the introduction of something that will make this game like atwar.

What can you possibly lose by giving scenario an map creators more choice?I am simply suggesting the expansion of an already existing feature,not the introduction of something that will make this game like atwar.

If you mean adding it as a choice,ofc I'm for it. I just thought you meant that you want it to be so every time.

Fizzer has said in a thread (maybe I can link it here later) that the reason overlapping bonuses doesn't work with local deployment is warlight's programming doesn't know which bonus to put the deployed armies in. In that same thread, I suggested to have a rule that tells warlight to always deploy in the bonus with the fewest territories first.

Seems simple to me, but I have zero programming knowledge. Also, I didn't fully understand what your solution was, or if it's different than mine.

LD itself in it's current state is very clumsy and a pain to play in maps that have more than 30 bonuses(more than 90% of the maps in WL) which results in a lot of boots in RT and a lot of stallings in MD games as it gets really grindy in late games, nobody wants to spend more than 5 minutes to find and deploy armies to places where LD restricts.

the thing is, Fizzer could probably work the code to support *superbonuses*but the problem he faces is bigger than that.overlapping bonus' or city bonus' are all overlapping bonus' and don't necessarily have larger territory base.a simple solution wouldn't solve all possible situations involving local deployments, and the settings aren't made for specific maps.

Or, you could always assign armies to the bonus with the highest value, so if it was part of a 5 army, a 10 army and a 15 army bonus, it would subtract from the 15 bonus allocation... and down the line. Would need to work in Anywhere armies too.

How is programming code able to handle "anywhere armies" (which is effectively a superbonus encompassing the entire map) while getting confused by overlapping bonuses? It seems like it would be a fairly simple fix, but I'd love to hear more details on why it causes issues.

It certainly would be a great help to be able to play maps with superbonuses using LD. It's a shame that so many great maps can't be played with Local Deployment (at least not without destroying many of their most interesting strategic features).

As a less cumbersome alternative to Local Deployment, I encourage you to try (and vote for, if you like it) Deployment Limits. It produces games somewhere in-between regular Warlight and Local Deployments, and has lots of interesting side-effects, like encirclement and the ability to maintain a border against an enemy during time of war.

Pooh, except that many super bonus' aren't larger than the subsequent bonus' either, so it again wouldn't work.

say you want 5 bonuses to be worth 5 each, and the total to be worth 28, so you make a super bonus worth 3.there are many maps like this already.

Poi, because it simply goes bonus > everywhere for everything.for anything else it would have to differentiate between two similars which one it needs, and then take from the general pool.

since you always know the general pool comes last, the system doesn't have to do anything to determine whether the general pool should be used first.

and the problem of overlapping bonus' doesn't occur only on super bonus', there are several maps that have similar bonus' of a similar size and value that just overlap for various reasons.. local deployment would only work efficiently for the territories in those bonus' that have a single bonus assigned to them, the rest it would have difficulty figuring out which bonus it should take from first.. Fizzer could assign a check box for you to assign which bonus it comes from, but that would make LD games even more tedious then they already are.

I believe it's been mentioned before for there to be a way to declare super bonus' as such, which would solve this and other problems, although it still wouldn't solve adjacent overlapping standard bonus'.